Issue 15 on the November ballot presents voters with a set of revisions to the Harrison City Charter. The city’s charter is seldom talked about and not terribly well understood. This series is my attempt to shed some light on the charter, the review process, and the proposed revisions to help voters make an informed decision. In the interest of full disclosure, I chaired the 2026 charter review after having served as secretary for the 2021 review. That said, these are my words and my thoughts alone. I’d like to think the other members of the 2026 charter review commission share my opinion since we voted unanimously on the recommendation presented to city council in July but it would be inconceivably arrogant for me to try to speak for them.

Fifth in a series: The Remaining Recommended Changes

Article 6 (formerly Article 5) – Departments, Boards and Commissions

This article was left mostly untouched though we expect future reviews may propose changes as the needs of the city evolve. There are a few minor changes recommended:

Section 6.09 – Removed the requirement that the law director be a Hamilton County resident . No other department head within the charter has such a requirement.

Section 6.10 – Clarified the definition of the recreation commission to allow for up to 7 formal members rather than forcing the commission to always have exactly 7 members.

Section 6.11 – Removed reference to capital improvement programs as the Planning Commission does not oversee these.

Article 7 (formerly Article 6) – Civil Service

Section 7.01 – Clarified wording around which roles comprise the unclassified service of the city.

Article 9 (formerly Article 8) – Initiative, Referendum, and Recall

Section 9.01 – Increased the petition requirement from 10% to 25% of the voter turnout in the last municipal election.

Section 9.05 – increased the window of time for holding a recall election. The current 30-45 day interval represents an impossibly tight window for the Board of Elections to pull a ballot together, notifications to be made, and so forth.

Article 10 (formerly Article 9) – Finances

Section 10.07 – Removed the $20,000 dollar threshold for requiring public bidding. This value is ridiculously low given decades of inflation. The recommended change simply references the amount set by the Ohio Revided Code (ORC) which is already indexed to inflation.

Section 10.09 – Added requirement for an annual financial audit. The city already does this as a matter of sound financial management after having been found un-auditable years ago, this change simplify codifies it in the charter.

Article 12 (formerly Article 11) – Miscellaneous

Section 12.02 – moved this sections text into section 12.05 to keep it together with the rest of the definition of the charter review process.

Section 12.07 – Adjusted the oath of office to make it more recitable without altering the specific items being sworn or affirmed.

No summary of the 2026 charter review commission recommendation would be complete without a look at amendments debated but not included in the formal recommendation to council as well as those things recommended but rejected by council. I don’t want to distract from the more pressing matter of helping voters understand the issue on their ballot. For that reason I’ll be holding that post until after the election.

Up next: Rejected Changes and Future Considerations